Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 12:06AM

MagicSean wrote: »

Are you suggesting I am not welcome or is that aimed at someone else?

I think your posts are inserting some much needed comic relief and are to be welcomed wholeheartedly!

MagicSean wrote: »

The revenue audit staff cant do anything because tax avoidance is not illegal. A person sees a proposed system announced in december for january. They rearrange their affairs before it is introduced so that they dont get hit by this new system. They have done nothing wrong or illegal. But if they are assessed on the previous years then their avoidance doesn't work.

What "avoidance" are you on about? Do you have something in specific in mind here - what are you talking about changing? This is truly baffling...
It's not that easy to simply "rearrange" one's "affairs", and we do have relatively good anti-avoidance legislation in Ireland.

K-9 · 29-01-2013 12:08AM

MagicSean wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting they do.

Somebody did and because of your misreading my reply, here we are 30/40 posts later..

K-9 · 29-01-2013 12:15AM

MagicSean wrote: »

Are you suggesting I am not welcome or is that aimed at someone else?

A general point, if it was specific it would have been in bold. I've had enough time wasted on moderating this thread, I'd prefer if posters engaged in meaningful discussion rather than engage in tit for tat nonsense, reasonable points just get ignored.

The revenue audit staff cant do anything because tax avoidance is not illegal. A person sees a proposed system announced in december for january. They rearrange their affairs before it is introduced so that they dont get hit by this new system. They have done nothing wrong or illegal. But if they are assessed on the previous years then their avoidance doesn't work.

But that's an issue about tax rules, which unfortunately in a country that actively looks to be tax liberal, I can't see addressed anytime soon. We actively advertise how easy our tax rules are.

waster81 · 29-01-2013 12:19AM

What we need to do is employ more people into our public service and revenue in particular

The increased number into department of revenue would help them track down the private sector scourge of tax avoidance

One case alone €110 million

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/1101/1224325979197.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/1128/business/revenue-may-recoup-110m-from-scheme-to-avoid-tax-215277.html

Revenue figures from 2011 raised over €400 million

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/annual-reports/2011/objectives-3.html#objective3

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 12:20AM

MagicSean wrote: »

The revenue audit staff cant do anything because tax avoidance is not illegal. A person sees a proposed system announced in december for january. They rearrange their affairs before it is introduced so that they dont get hit by this new system. They have done nothing wrong or illegal. But if they are assessed on the previous years then their avoidance doesn't work.

Oh and there'd be the minor issue of all manner of legal, constitutional and ECJ challenges to any attempts to retrospectively change tax law.

"Oh by the way, you know the way we, the Government had legislation in place telling you THIS IS RED and THIS IS GREEN, and you acted accordingly, well now we've decided to change history... and here's your bill..." Ummmm, yeah...

woodoo · 29-01-2013 12:21AM

doc_17 wrote: »

I work in the PS and I would prefer the pay cut option rather than negotiate with the government. They are going to get their reductions in payroll, whether it is negotiated or imposed.

If it is negotiated we will have to give up more and still have our pay reduced anyway.

That is a good point. They have cut our wages and brought in a pension levy already. Its all eaten bread and forgotten. They are going to cut our wages again. Even if we agree reforms this year they will still be back in a year or 2 looking for cuts.

Godge · 29-01-2013 12:34AM

woodoo wrote: »

That is a good point. They have cut our wages and brought in a pension levy already. Its all eaten bread and forgotten. They are going to cut our wages again. Even if we agree reforms this year they will still be back in a year or 2 looking for cuts.

I think this is the last round you guys will have to face.

We are 85% of the way on cutting the deficit.

Don't expect a pay increase before 2020 though.

MagicSean · 29-01-2013 12:34AM

barneystinson wrote: »

Oh and there'd be the minor issue of all manner of legal, constitutional and ECJ challenges to any attempts to retrospectively change tax law.

"Oh by the way, you know the way we, the Government had legislation in place telling you THIS IS RED and THIS IS GREEN, and you acted accordingly, well now we've decided to change history... and here's your bill..." Ummmm, yeah...

How is it retrospecive legislation? You are not taxing them on the previous years earnings. You are taxing them on this years earnings based on their earnings from last year as a benchmark.

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 12:38AM

waster81 wrote: »

What we need to do is employ more people into our public service and revenue in particular

The increased number into department of revenue would help them track down the private sector scourge of tax avoidance

One case alone €110 million

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/1101/1224325979197.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/1128/business/revenue-may-recoup-110m-from-scheme-to-avoid-tax-215277.html

Revenue figures from 2011 raised over €400 million

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/annual-reports/2011/objectives-3.html#objective3

An interesting point in that regard - Revenue are currently hiring new audit staff, at AO grade. The standard is incredibly high, they're getting experienced professionals (generally aged mid-20s to late 30s) with good degrees and at least one professional qualification (accountant, tax consultant, or both in some cases).

For a starting salary of €29.5k, but with substantial increments. These are the people who will bump up that €400m if it's there to be found.

Don't see many of them sticking around for long if increments are cut... a couple of years' worth of Revenue experience and they become very desirable back in the private sector.

Then the same people who are on here now screaming for across the board paycuts will be on here wailing and gnashing their teeth about how our Revenue officials aren't up to the job, and how short sighted it was not to ensure retention of skills and knowledge (over 40% of Revenue staff are over 50)...

If you pay peanuts...

Having said that, I think they could & should cut payscales from the top down, on a sliding scale. So say you cut 4% at the top of the scale, 3.6% off the next point down, 3.2% off the next point, etc... so that you don't affect the bottom couple of points, but bring down the pay of the people who have topped out and not been promoted recently.

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 12:40AM

MagicSean wrote: »

How is it retrospecive legislation? You are not taxing them on the previous years earnings. You are taxing them on this years earnings based on their earnings from last year as a benchmark.

Can you explain that to me in English? Bearing in mind I work in tax and that makes no sense to me.

Are you proposing that regardless of how much a person's actual earnings are this year, you're going to tax them based on last year's earnings??

K-9 · 29-01-2013 01:04AM

waster81 wrote: »

What we need to do is employ more people into our public service and revenue in particular

The increased number into department of revenue would help them track down the private sector scourge of tax avoidance

One case alone €110 million

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/1101/1224325979197.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/1128/business/revenue-may-recoup-110m-from-scheme-to-avoid-tax-215277.html

Revenue figures from 2011 raised over €400 million

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/annual-reports/2011/objectives-3.html#objective3

Revenue already brought in measures to target high earning individuals, based on the Canadian model. People on high incomes get tax reliefs restricted. Unfortunately high wealth individuals will look out for other loopholes in the system.

Farmer Pudsey · 29-01-2013 01:25AM

Godge wrote: »

How do you define "minimmal compared to this"

total employment fell from 2,113.9 to 1,787.9 (in 000s), see CSO for figures, a reduction of 15.4%.

Public sector numbers are falling from around 320,000 to 282,000 by the end of this year, a reduction of 11.875%. Now I am not saying that the public sector has suffered as much and I may be out with some of my figures but I don't think "minimal" is the appropriate word to use in comparison.

First Godge most workers who left the PS service left through natural wastage and a Voluntary redundancy scheme. Yes there was some involuntry redundancy but this was minimum. The CSO workforce figures fail to take into account sole traders that have problems finding work. So you may have 1-3% involuntary displacement in the PS while you had maybe 20% in the private sector.

Godge wrote: »

Here we go again, the same doomsday scenario that has been played out for years and years that we cannot go on the way we are and massive huge cuts will be needed to get us back to where we need to be.

The facts are as follows: GGB needs to be 3% of GDP. In 2012 it is estimated that the GGB was €13.4 bn or 8.2% of GDP. That means we need to close the deficit by €8.5 bn to get to €4.9 bn as a 3% deficit is equal to that. for where I got my figures see below:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/meb2013/January2013.pdf

Assume 3% growth in nominal GDP per annum for 2013, 2014 and 2015, that the target budget deficit will be around €5.4 bn. The amount to be found is €8 bn. Now the first bit of good news. That figure does not include the adjustments made for 2013. These amount to €3.5bn as the Minister announced in the budget. By my calculations we therefore need to find €4.5 bn over the next two budgets. Now, to be fair the Minister thinks it is a little more than that.
http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2013/FinancialStatement.aspx

He puts the figure at €5.1 bn but then again maybe he is not as optimistic as I am about growth in nominal GDP or maybe he is allowing himself to announce next December or the following one how he is beating targets and things aren't as bad as we thought they would be. Either way, neither €4.5 bn or €5.1 bn over the next two budgets are unachievable. Why?

(1) Public service pay and pensions savings of €1 bn are to be found. Some €200m of this has already been identified according to a report I read at the weekend.
(2) The Minister was very clever in his speech, announcing a number of measures that will not have effect until 2014 or for which the full effects will not be felt until then. These include the new pension limits and the full year or property tax. See the details here but my quick calculation (could be a little off) resulted in savings over-and-above 2013 of €613m
http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2013/Documents/Summary%20of%202013%20Budget%20Measures%20Policy%20Changes.pdf

So with one leap (taking my figure) and assuming the public service pay element will deliver as it is predicted to do (and to be fair public service pay is the only major element of public expenditure on the way down), we are down from €4.5 bn to €2.9 bn.

Now one thing I have not included are the full year savings from any expenditure changes. These are very hard to extract from the expenditure statement but from what I could, they would only amount to around €100m, still though €0.1bn of the target. Let us leave that as extra safety net.

The question then becomes, where do you find €2.9 bn?
Well €50 off child benefit gives you €700m approx.
More action on tax reliefs could give you another €400m.

That is where it gets harder - finding the last €1.5 - €1.8 bn or so. Water charges anyone for some of it? Some more people in jobs paying taxes and less unemployment benefit would help but I can't help thinking there is one more shock in store for people but that is all.

To sum up: Difficult but not doomsday.

Yes thing are slowly picking up however we have not got real growth and this may taper out due to outside issues or loss of confidance in the private sector if taxes continue to rise. CB is a tricky issue Labour preference means testing will discrimate against PAYE workers and incentive people to remain unemployed. A straight cut of 50euro might be fairer however it may cause huge issue for families. Along with proposed increase in the College registration fee of 250/year and loss of CB at 18 ( which I have not got an issue with) it can leave a family with 3 childern facing an income change if your proposals go ahead of 3500 euro with a child going to college anf facing a bill of 8-10K/year. I can only see 10/child/ year of CB in the next two years and uproar if means tested especially with childminding costs.

My own believe is that the lower echlons of the economy can ill afford more tax even though it is out of line with the EU norm and we hit the high rate 52% faster than most other EU countries. Maybe tightening tax avoidance can yield 500 million but it is no magic bullet and like the household charge is showing as this money is extracted spending is droping as well. I think that the PS workers will have to contribute 1 billion in wage cuts to the pot and I think that the trioka will insist on it and that the unions know it as well.

Godge wrote: »

"The tax side is now almost exhausted". Is it? Have a look at this:

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/is-ireland-low-tax-again.html

The following quote might shock you:

"For average earners Ireland is a low-taxed, low-social-insured economy. A chart ranked by total deductions is here. Ireland is at the bottom."

There is a huge argument that reducing the personal tax credit is the way to go. The preferable option would be to freeze it for ten years and let inflation eat away at the real value of it but a cut of 20% in the personal tax credit would do a lot to bring us in line with the rest of Europe when it comes to income tax. A rise in PRSI would also help. Both measures would also bring in a lot of revenue. Whether they are politically acceptable and realistic is the other side of that debate which leads me to conclude that we are unlikely to see such changes.

As I have stated above while we have high personel tax credits we hit the haig tax rate very fast we also have VRT and high car tax which balance the loss in water rates and household charge. We have very high local authority rates for buisness so I cannot see any leeway here

MagicSean wrote: »

Are you suggesting I am not welcome or is that aimed at someone else?

The revenue audit staff cant do anything because tax avoidance is not illegal. A person sees a proposed system announced in december for january. They rearrange their affairs before it is introduced so that they dont get hit by this new system. They have done nothing wrong or illegal. But if they are assessed on the previous years then their avoidance doesn't work.

Trying to decipher what you are sugesting like some posters you think there is a magic bullet in uncollected revenue out there. Tax avoidance is really only used by the very wealthy. You seem to be suggesting that if a taxpayer accounts showed avoidance measures ''X'' last year and Income ''Y'' and that the revenue changed some tax regulations that would have reduce his avoidance by an amount ''C'' that his income would be Y+C next year no matter what changes took place in his buisness.

This is not workable

K-9 · 29-01-2013 01:26AM

MagicSean wrote: »

How is it retrospecive legislation? You are not taxing them on the previous years earnings. You are taxing them on this years earnings based on their earnings from last year as a benchmark.

That's what the whole self-employed system is based on.

You are advocating a total change to the very basis of taxing the self employed, something like the idea of self assessment brought in 20 years ago. IBEC, the small business association, Accountants and the tax advisors would need to be included in the decision making, it isn't something the Government and the public service decide. Otherwise IBEC could advocate A 50% cut to PS pay and ignore the unions!

Realistic options lads!

Pappa Charlie · 29-01-2013 01:41AM

MagicSean wrote: »

Are you suggesting I am not welcome or is that aimed at someone else?

The revenue audit staff cant do anything because tax avoidance is not illegal. A person sees a proposed system announced in december for january. They rearrange their affairs before it is introduced so that they dont get hit by this new system. They have done nothing wrong or illegal. But if they are assessed on the previous years then their avoidance doesn't work.

I reckon it's aimed at me as I suggested the p60 senario in an earlier post, but it appears to me anything other than a direct paycut to public sector workers falls short of K9's expectations, maybe we should all do an IQ test to post on his forum

29-01-2013 01:42AM

K-9 wrote: »

That's what the whole self-employed system is based on.

You are advocating a total change to the very basis of taxing the self employed, something like the idea of self assessment brought in 20 years ago. IBEC, the small business association, Accountants and the tax advisors would need to be included in the decision making, it isn't something the Government and the public service decide. Otherwise IBEC could advocate A 50% cut to PS pay and ignore the unions!

Realistic options lads!

Leaving all other tax policy and technical issues aside, the CP II palaver is about the government trying to save money on the pay bill for public servants.

It is not at all clear what the taxation of the self employed has to do with saving money on the public service pay bill.

Before someone leaps in with both feet first and posts without thinking: I am well aware that if we collected more tax we would narrow the deficit, just as we would widen it if we collected less tax. But that's not the point of the CP II talks. The point of the CP II talks is to save money on the public service pay bill.

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 01:45AM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

I reckon it's aimed at me as I suggested the p60 senario in an earlier post, but it appears to me anything other than a direct paycut to public sector workers falls short of K9's expectations, maybe we should all do an IQ test to post on his forum

That'd be this absolute doozy - I didn't realise that it wasn't Sean's brainchild originally!

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

They had no choice to pay bubble prices with private sector speculators and mad construction workers wages much of which was paid in cash by speculators and contractors, but now ordinary workers on modest wages are the easy target, why not get every worker in the country to submit their p60 for the last 5 years and get revenue to apply cuts to those who clearly have not been cut but are saying that they are and I know quite a few private sector workers who have not been cut!

What does this suggestion even mean?!

Please tell me it's just tongue in cheek, that you didn't mean it really..?!

Pappa Charlie · 29-01-2013 01:51AM

barneystinson wrote: »

That'd be this absolute doozy - I didn't realise that it wasn't Sean's brainchild originally!

What does this suggestion even mean?!

Please tell me it's just tongue in cheek, that you didn't mean it really..?!

Oh! Yes I did Barneystinkson

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 01:56AM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Oh! Yes I did Barneystinkson

Stay Classy Charlie, it's like primary school in here :rolleyes:

Explain how it works then? How do Revenue apply cuts to some people? What legislation will be required, and how will the various legal obstacles be overcome?

EDIT: Oh yes and bear in mind Charlie, that there's plenty of PS workers in receipt of increments, whose gross pay has increased in the last 5 years.

Pappa Charlie · 29-01-2013 02:00AM

barneystinson wrote: »

Stay Classy Charlie, it's like primary school in here :rolleyes:

Explain how it works then? How do Revenue apply cuts to some people? What legislation will be required, and how will the various legal obstacles be overcome?

EDIT: Oh yes and bear in mind Charlie, that there's plenty of PS workers in receipt of increments, whose gross pay has increased in the last 5 years.

Can I call you Barney for short so as to avoid any further misspellings?

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 02:04AM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Can I call you Barney for short so as to avoid any further misspellings?

When you quote someone you don't really need to address them by name, it's kind of clear who you're talking to... call me whatever you like, just quit stalling and get back to digging that hole for yourself by explaining the details of your magical unconstitutional post hoc income adjustment policy...

Pappa Charlie · 29-01-2013 02:09AM

barneystinson wrote: »

Stay Classy Charlie, it's like primary school in here :rolleyes:

Explain how it works then? How do Revenue apply cuts to some people? What legislation will be required, and how will the various legal obstacles be overcome?

EDIT: Oh yes and bear in mind Charlie, that there's plenty of PS workers in receipt of increments, whose gross pay has increased in the last 5 years.

I've no doubt that it would require legislation but the government have to us that they will introduce legislation in the event of talks breaking down, so legislation can happen when the will is there. My proposal is that revenue examine all paye workers pay over the past 5 years and see who have taken cuts and more importantly who have not, regardless of who they are then if they have avoided cuts then they should be taxed accordingly to come in line with public sector pay cuts in the region of 20% to date. Therefore those who are avoiding and saying they have taken cuts will pay their share, I do believe that there are many in this bracket! I don't think it's that bizarre seeing as we have septic tank charges!

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 02:15AM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

I've no doubt that it would require legislation but the government have to us that they will introduce legislation in the event of talks breaking down, so legislation can happen when the will is there. My proposal is that revenue examine all paye workers pay over the past 5 years and see who have taken cuts and more importantly who have not, regardless of who they are then if they have avoided cuts then they should be taxed accordingly to come in line with public sector pay cuts in the region of 20% to date. Therefore those who are avoiding and saying they have taken cuts will pay their share, I do believe that there are many in this bracket! I don't think it's that bizarre seeing as we have septic tank charges!

Thanks for clearing that up. That is what I was afraid you meant, and the fact that you think it could possible to do that is very disturbing.

What about people who have changed jobs in the last 5 years?
What about people who have been promoted?
What about people who are now working more hours?
What about PS workers who have had their gross income increase through increments during the period (but at thesame time have been subject to the same 20% paycut you refer to above)?

How about the fact that THE ENTIRE TAX CODE would have to be changed - you are talking about completely and fundamentally changing the way income is assessed for tax, into something that bears no resemblance to any tax system I've ever heard of. You're talking about taxing people at vastly different rates depending on how much they earned (AND paid tax on) previously, rather than what they're earning now.

Bizarre, truly bizarre

Actually, it's kind of like a weird form of communism, the state determines how much a person's net pay is going to be, regardless of what their actual gross income is...

K-9 · 29-01-2013 02:25AM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

I reckon it's aimed at me as I suggested the p60 senario in an earlier post, but it appears to me anything other than a direct paycut to public sector workers falls short of K9's expectations, maybe we should all do an IQ test to post on his forum

While I've explicitly outruled a cut to pay. Hmmmmmm IQ's.

barneystinson · 29-01-2013 02:26AM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

I had a feeling you wouldn't like it Barmy

No need to take it out on me because you choose to come on here and make a proposal a 12 year old could see is patently nonsensical, on what is supposed to be a serious discussion forum.

Care to answer the questions I put to you about your radical reorganisation of the entire tax system above?

And while you're at it:
How would you propose to tax the self employed, or would your new measures be reserved especially for the PAYE worker?
You say everyone will have to have their previous few years' P60s submitted so that Revenue can wave a magic wand and decide how much extra tax they will have to pay going forward - since it will probablt take most of the tax year for Revenue staff to get that done, how is the tax to be collected then - all in one go in the last few months of the year?
And what about people who are both PAYE employees and self-employed?

Pappa Charlie · 29-01-2013 02:26AM

K-9 wrote: »

While I've explicitly outruled a cut to pay. Hmmmmmm IQ's.

Hmmmmmmm

K-9 · 29-01-2013 02:32AM

Pappa Charlie will not be replying to this thread, a one day ban and is banned from posting on this thread.

This thread is great at sorting out those we don't want about here.

noah123 · 29-01-2013 12:34PM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

They had no choice to pay bubble prices with private sector speculators and mad construction workers wages much of which was paid in cash by speculators and contractors, but now ordinary workers on modest wages are the easy target, why not get every worker in the country to submit their p60 for the last 5 years and get revenue to apply cuts to those who clearly have not been cut but are saying that they are and I know quite a few private sector workers who have not been cut!

Sorry I take issue with this argument either in private or public sector..No one put a gun to their head when they signed up. If they took a decision without thinking through the consequences of what would happen if they lost their job or got a pay cut then that is there own fault for not properly investigating fully how prepared they were for the mortgage. They had the same options as everyone else which included renting. Both sectors have people who bought in the bubble so it cannot be used as an argument for either sector

noah123 · 29-01-2013 12:40PM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

And your best solution is to cut public servants pay again! Get ready for strikes and let the government factor that into their budget, why not go to the people who causes this collaspe, private sector bankers and speculators, as usual the powerful elite in Europe pass the bill into the ordinary Joe soap and watch on while we go at each others throats with the blame game, people should join together as Irish citizens and get out onto the streets and demand action in Europe to ease the debt burden, Kenny is like a school boy going into the principals room any time I see in Europe. Get in a kick the ****ing table up in the air and like David Cameron threaten to leave and form an alliance with the UK! That might be a bit much for you to take in Mfitzy!

Pappa why do you and others try and deflect the blame on bankers and speculators the figures stand for themselves. We would of been in this position even without the banks 2 thirds are due to an overspend problem. 1 third banks and there is negotiations on to try and get the banking debt sorted. So taking the 1 third which is being negotiated out of the equation who do you want to blame for the other 2 thirds of our problem? I ask this question just to try and broaden the mind of Public Sector workers who think the boogey man in the banks is to blame for all of our ills

kippy · 29-01-2013 12:57PM

noah123 wrote: »

Pappa why do you and others try and deflect the blame on bankers and speculators the figures stand for themselves. We would of been in this position even without the banks 2 thirds are due to an overspend problem. 1 third banks and there is negotiations on to try and get the banking debt sorted. So taking the 1 third which is being negotiated out of the equation who do you want to blame for the other 2 thirds of our problem? I ask this question just to try and broaden the mind of Public Sector workers who think the boogey man in the banks is to blame for all of our ills

In the past 5-6 years what portion of government spending (outside of interest repayments) has increased at the highest percentage?

Now, I am not blaming social welfare recipients for this, it is just a knock on effect from the bursting of a significant property bubble which has had two major consequences for this economy:
1. A drastic rise in the amount of people out of work. Which in turn has meant that the social welfare spend has increased drastically and the direct tax take (wages based) that these new social welfare recipients would have once paid to the state is now gone.
2. The indirect taxes(not pay related) associated with this bubble have vanished.
Of the two thirds of the debt we have in relation to sovereign would you like to take a guess at how much points 1 and 2 are in relation to it?

It's fine for you and others to point out that the public sector pay and pensions have to come down, which in fact they have been on an annual basis for the past number of years as proven in numerous reports and indeed which will continue to do so for at least 3 more years, but it's also important to understand that to run a country costs money. Services do not come for free. There will always be a public sector pay and pensions bill and public sector workers have in no way escaped unscathed, nor are all of them greedy idiots.

While many say the elephant in the room is public sector wages (and I admit more can and will be done here) the biggest issue is the social welfare bill - not necessarily reducing it, but getting people off that bill and paying taxes again.

Also,
It's not just public sector workers that blame the bankers, many more do to. And while the current debt situation is not ALL to do with shady dealings in the banks, lax regulation and politicians who cannot remember their own banking arrangements, these people have gotten away scott free where, from the outside at least, some laws appear to have been broken, in at least one of the major institutions involved.

This is tough to take, for someone like me to be honest.

itzme · 29-01-2013 01:00PM

itzme wrote: »

What do I want out of CPII, I want a more detailed attempt to explain the amount of savings required, their necessity and how they will be achieved along with the effects of these savings. Better communication so that we don't have another 3-5 years of people sniping at each other.

For example, staff numbers in education are being reduced in each sector. Student numbers are going up in each sector, birth rates and education progression rates tell us that this is going to continue at a rapid rate over the next 15 years barring some big change. There is a trend there. What policy will be implemented to affect this trend? How are the intended savings going to affect this policy/take account of it? If cuts in staff are going to happen in education as part of the savings, what will the impact be considering this trend?

Also, resources are at a premium in second and third level science labs or anything due to the reduced budgets. This is leading to a reduction of hands on experience of conducting experiments and the quality of what we are teaching at both levels. In turn this is leading us to drop in university rankings and our students receiving a worse education. If cuts are to come out of these budgets, what are the expected outcomes and how will it impact on the quality?

What efficiences can be gained through reform that have no negatives from a service point of view?

At this point it needs to be clearly stated by the government that most of the cuts will have a negative impact on the services. It is their responsibility to the people to detail this. The expected effect of the different cuts needs to be articulated clearly and concisely. Otherwise if we don't have something to judge the savings on (not just €Xmn saved) it just opens up the whole process in 1/2/3 years down the road to be attacked by extremes of both sides for not "achieving" what it set out to.

So the assumptions of each cut/saving need to be laid out. Hypothetical example to follow....By this I mean, lets say they choose to save (random rigure) €200mn from the staff budget of the HSE, €50mn of this is from frontline staff. The aim is to reduce the staff numbers in areas where they aren't needed/ it is overstaffed and the waiting list time will therefore not be increased. This is all predicated on the numbers of people using the service not increasing drastically from the estimated amounts. If they do this "saving" is useless as it doesn't achieve its aim.
Same goes for the savings based on GDP targets, if the aim of all the savings is to reduce the deficit to a reasonable percentage and due to changes in our economy the deficit is increasing then the savings have to be revisited and increased.

Deleted User wrote: »

Before someone leaps in with both feet first and posts without thinking: I am well aware that if we collected more tax we would narrow the deficit, just as we would widen it if we collected less tax. But that's not the point of the CP II talks. The point of the CP II talks is to save money on the public service pay bill.

I understand what you mean here by the point of the talks but I disagree. I think that is one point and that going in with only the idea of getting direct savings money on the pay bill is a mistake.
I'm hoping that you are including in savings here, increased efficiency and productivity. As the way you've phrased it implies it's all about reducing the total pay bill and not getting more out of what we pay and also reducing the bill.
Every saving needs to come with a list of assumptions and objectives. If the during the course of the implementation it becomes clear the assumptions were wrong or that the aims of the savings can't be achieved through the plan then the saving has to be revisited. Without this essential detail, it'll boil down to absolute numbers and as we see on this forum every day absolute numbers mean nothing without context.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments